Check XML sitemap health

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already set readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds concrete behavioral details: 'Read-only. Issues N+1 HTTP GETs: one for robots.txt + sitemap, then up to max_urls_to_check HEADs against sampled URLs. Deterministic, rule-based; no LLM.' This goes beyond annotations and provides transparency about network requests and determinism.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (three short paragraphs) and well-structured: purpose first, then behavioral traits, then usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple sitemap checks), full parameters, annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how it works, and when to use it, with no missing information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds extra context: domain parameter notes tool tries /sitemap.xml and follows robots.txt and sitemap indexes; max_urls_to_check explains it caps HTTP HEADs. This adds meaning beyond the schema, justifying a 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool validates a domain's XML sitemap, listing specific checks (presence, accessibility, URL count, lastmod freshness, sitemap-index handling, image/video extensions). It uses a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('domain's XML sitemap'), and distinguishes from siblings like audit_sitemap and check_robots.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'site-wide indexing audits.' It also provides pairings ('Pair with check_robots for a full pre-crawl picture') and alternatives for per-page checks ('use audit_page or check_technical instead').

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.